• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Untold story of PAP

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I think its too late for Lim Hock Siew.

Instructional Manual IM which governs the conduct of a civil servant which in this forbids membership in a political party.

well i hope lim hock siew quickly finishes putting pen to paper because i gather he is now on dialysis and suffering from renal failure...

yes...would also like to hear from say Lim Hong Bee,Toots Lim Kean Chye, Eber, Puthucheary(both bros), Eu, Sharma, Linda Chen, Samad etc...most if not all are probably dead by now but hopefully their families are holding on to some 'gold dust' to be eventually shared for posterity's sake...

er what is "IM"?
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
I am sceptical that the book is neutral. It'll more likely be pro-Lee KY. That's why he is signing the books and making a ra-ra on launching it.

The blurb by the authors said that it is an untold story and stimulates yr fantasies and expectation that it will be a thriller (sic Chua Mui Hoong), revealing many more past secrets in a no-holds-barred account based on past adversaries etc.

But ultimately the book must have an angle that didnt offend the senior Lee. If the angle was on how the forces of evil waged by desperate men were beaten by equally desperate people, and to give a history lesson to the post 65ers to jolt them into the PAP embrace, no wonder the book will meet the nod of LKY.

What if the authors had premised the book on how the old Lee schemed and manouvred the laws, the populace, the media and his compadres, to get where he is today, by threats, by blackmail, by ruthless political machinations (as DrLee Siew Choh always said), does anybody think that the book will see the light of day?

Inevitably, I think the authors are as overawed, and thus impotent, as past book writers to really give that sharp critical investigative angle that will get past Lee's bias and implicit censorship. Look at who is behind the 3 - Han Fook Kwang who has become another one of those overawed into docility. From excerpts so far published in the ST, I have not found anything that is explosive or indicting of the old man's tactics. He in his placid aloofness will deny any account of anyhting that is not comfortable, and he has done that with Dr Toh's and Ong Pang Boon's testimonies.
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Scroobal

History as always is selective especially self reflective pieces on the PAP written by Pro PAP people. But as more is written and more question are asked, and left unanswered , then very much like Chin Peng's autobiograhpy, we can see the gaps which later generations will fill in. Firstly the writers could not touch the oral histories at the National Archives embargoed by the witnesses to historyI believe till after LKY dies. These will add in another set of memories which as indicated will conflict with LKY's account of first amongst equals. Heck even the accounts of him being appointed PM are fraught with conflict with his own old guard. OK so here are the possible gaps in Men in White to be filled in later and probably more sensitive due to the need of the PAP to remain in public eyes as monolithic.

1. Internal Party Rivals and Feuds. That with the communists and their left wing supporters is well documented. Less well documented are people who were not with the communist,who were left leaning chinese educated and who were either rivals to LKY for political power within the party or sough some party check on his power. That part is still quite murky. The portrayal in the book was that LKY's rise to PM was inevitable due to superior .... and..........I suspect that it was in fact less than inevitable and there was loads of scheming in play.



Cheers


Locke

please feel free to add the blanks

Notice that it is the PAP vide LKY that has labelled everybody that opposed him as Communists or pro-Communists. He is the one who brandished the ISA against these people, effectively gagging them to this day and ensured that the labels are burned into the history archives and the nation's memories.

Nothing so far written has been inflammatory or provocative that will raise LKY's eyebrows. If that happens, then I may sit up and read on.
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear King

Lets put it another way, whilst the PAP might not have been honest as to who or why they labelled certain left leaning people communist and whether these left leaning people in fact knew they were taking communist direction , Chin Peng himself has not come forth in his biography or not been completely honest as to who were his communist members within Singapore and who his supporters were

That they were there is beyond doubt as Chin Peng himself admitted to the existence of an underground which he had control or some form of direction over. As to their ruthlessness just ten years later in 1970 they executed and falsely accused many of their own party members as "Spies" and executed them in purges.



Locke
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
By TAN SAI SIONG

BOTH Gianni Versace and The Plen have been in the news in the past 10 days, with the slain Italian fashion designer hogging more column space than the former underground communist leader.

Versace made headlines because his murder was as hugely shocking as his hugely successful tart-inspired fashion wear.


The Plen and Mrs Fang in a recent interview
in Malaysia. Pic/ Nanyang Siang Pau

The Plen aka Fang Chuang Pi (or Fong Chong Pik as he was known earlier before hanyu pinyin became popular) made news thanks to a lengthy and wide-ranging interview he gave in Chinese to Nanyang Siang Pau, a Malaysian newspaper.

The Straits Times carried summaries of that interview and English translations of extensive excerpts.

I dare wager that even before the media spotlight focused so sharply on Versace, more Singaporeans knew about him than The Plen. That is the irony and the pity.

While information or knowledge about Versace may be interesting, it is not critical to the memory bank of the average Singaporean, whether young or old.

It is a different story where The Plen and his activities are concerned. They played a role at a critical point in our history.

Yet, the young in Singapore know little to nothing about him. A survey last year by the Ministry of Education, covering some 2,500 students from primary and secondary schools all the way up to polytechnics and universities, had revealed that almost all didn't have a clue about The Plen.

Only two out of 1,538 post-secondary students could say that he was the communist underground leader who contacted Mr Lee Kuan Yew to try to persuade the People's Action Party to work with the communists.

One howler from the survey was that a respondent even thought Mr Lee was The Plen. On reflection, it is no laughing matter.

It is with something of a red face that middle-aged me have to confess to learning about him quite recently from an anecdote told over lunch by a former member of the Legislative Council.

Even then, The Plen was a side dish to the main course of the conversation, which was Lai Teck, the secretary-general of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) before Chin Peng.

Lai absconded with the party's funds after he was discovered to be a spy for the Japanese and the British.

As for The Plen, it is short for Plenipotentiary, an apt nickname given to Fang by Mr Lee. Plenipotentiary, according to the dictionary, is a representative of a ruler with absolute or discretionary powers to deal on the ruler's behalf. It was as an emissary of the CPM that he met Mr Lee four times before the 1959 election that was to give Singapore internal self-government.

The meetings were to discover if the leader of the People's Action Party was prepared to let the communists work with the PAP in an united anti-colonial front.



At that time, it was not the sort of help which Mr Lee could dismiss.

As recorded by Singapore, An Illustrated History, published in 1984 by the Ministry of Culture, the PAP in 1956 and 1957 was a "virtual prisoner of the communists who had strong influence in trade unions, Chinese schools and PAP branches".

That influence also has the testimony of Dr Goh Keng Swee, quoted in Dennis Bloodworth's The Tiger And The Trojan Horse as saying that certain machinations which The Plen set off "showed that by far the strongest political power in Singapore at that time was the underground Communist Party".

At his meetings with The Plen, Mr Lee had hinted to him to prove his bona fide by getting Chang Yuen Tong, whom the communists had planted in David Marshall's Workers' Party, to resign from that party.

Soon after, not only did Chang resign from the party but also from his city council seat, the WP was routed in the by-election and the PAP secured that trophy convincingly.

Dr Goh, who was privy to the Lee-Fang discussions, told Bloodworth that that event gave him a powerful insight into the tremendous strength of the CPM.



Although Fang was a wanted man on the run from the colonial authorities and without the normal office apparatus of telephones, filing cabinets, files and staff, he could control events to an extent which even the governor could not.

For Dr Goh, this realisation was a very chastening, "very creepy" experience.

Now that Fang, yesterday's shadowy man, has stepped out of the shadows after 40 years of being in the woodworks, what should today's Singaporeans -- who know him not at all, or very little and mostly from hearsay or books on Singapore's struggle for independence - make of him?

How should one evaluate his qualified praise of Singapore's success in the Nanyang newspaper interview and his insinuation that if not for him and his party, there might not have been this success?

Are any kudos due to the communists for supporting the PAP - and in that tenuous way providing Singapore with an uninterrupted and stable leadership -- or should one look more closely at what motivated them into providing that support?

Was that support not based on their calculation that they could put the PAP in their pockets after the victory?

As such, was that motive not unworthy and undeserving of gratitude?

Fang may no longer look like "the mystery underground man or the guerilla fighter" but he may also not be the avuncular retiree with the eyes of the frightened doe that his latest photograph in the newspapers shows him to be.

Now that he has taken into the open what appears to me to be a campaign for him and his comrades to be let back into Singapore on their terms, perhaps it is time for those who know his other persona well to share that knowledge.

Reader Philip Goh Siew Hock, a former journalist colleague of The Plen, has started the ball rolling, giving a picture of a charming dissembler in the Forum page.

May others follow.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
The Straits Times, Sept 3, 1997

FORMER communist leader Fang Chuang Pi has replied to a statement from the Senior Minister's press secretary and denied any contradiction between his words and actions on the issue of Singapore's merger with Malaysia.

The claim made by the press secretary, Madam Yeong Yoon Ying, that he was "self- contradictory" was "a distortion of the truth", he said in a letter published in the Lianhe Zaobao yesterday.

Madam Yeong wrote to the Lianhe Zaobao a month ago following an interview Mr Fang gave to the Malaysian Chinese daily, Nanyang Siang Pau.


Fang Chuang Pi aka the Plen In the interview, the former leader of the now disbanded Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), known as The Plen, was reported to have said that he had supported the merger of Singapore and Malaysia.
Rebutting this, Madam Yeong said: "He strongly opposed the merger and ordered the late Lim Chin Siong (a pro-communist leader) to break up the People's Action Party and to stop the merger. There are documents and people to attest to what happened."


Mr Fang said in his reply: "During my interview with the Nanyang Siang Pau, I made it clear that I had some misgivings and disagreed with the merger. My deeds match my words. Where is the 'contradiction'?"

He noted that advocating merger did not mean accepting unsuitable conditions. "A hungry person will look for food, but he does not have to swallow poison. Again, where is the 'contradiction'?" he said.

He added: "I also said in the interview that the brief period of merger during 1963 showed that conditions were not conducive then. I should think this is a historical fact.

"The Lianhe Zaobao also reprinted the interview, did Madam Yeong not read it?" he asked.

Mr Fang also took issue with the statement "it was fortunate for Mr Lee that he was not dealt with like many others who opposed the CPM, but did not receive Mr Fang's special protection".

Madam Yeong made that remark when commenting on Mr Fang's reminder to Mr Lee, in 1995, that he had given Mr Lee protection in the 1950s.

She said: "This protection would not have been necessary if his organisation had, as Mr Fang claims, acted constitutionally and democratically."

Mr Fang said this implied that "many who opposed the CPM had been dealt with". This was not true, he said.

"Have any leaders and members of the PAP, senior or junior officials of the PAP government been afflicted the slightest harm by the leftists?"



He added that after the 1955 constitutional arrangements came into effect, "none of the politicians, including those who cooperated openly with the colonial masters, such as C.C. Tan, John Laycock, Lim Yew Hock, Chew Swee Kee and others, were 'dealt with' or 'harmed'."

"Historical truths cannot be distorted," he said.

Noting that Madam Yeong had ended her letter by saying that the past would be judged by historians, Mr Fang said: "I am in full agreement with this.

"But as a party to the struggle, if I do not have the opportunity at all to speak, how will historians be able to discover the truth?" he asked.

"If the historians cannot find the truth, how will they be able to make a truthful and fair judgment on history?"

He concluded his one-page letter on this point: "Many other matters raised by Madam Yeong in the reply were discussed in my letter to Lee Kuan Yew and I will not dwell on them here."

He ended by saying: "I am very grateful to Madam Yeong's tolerant attitude in her reply."
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
The New Paper, Aug 4, 1997

WHY don't you just settle in Malaysia?

This was Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's press secretary's reply to remarks made by the "Plen", Mr Fang Chuang Pi, in recent interviews.

Madam Yeong Yoon Ying noted that Mr Fang, 71, believes the Malaysian government's policy is more charitable to communists.

"This may well be so because the communists have never been able to influence the Malay base," she said .

Mr Fang should accept Malaysia's terms and settle there.

"There is no point arguing about his return to Singapore, which he has described as a freak which will die young," said Madam Yeong, in a letter published in Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao today.


Mr Fang Chuang Pi was interviewed
recently by Malaysian newspaper
Pic/ Nanyang Siang Pau.

Mr Fang, of the former Malayan Communist Party (MCP), had told Malaysia's Nanyang Siang Pau, of his wish to settle in Singapore. He said although he was allowed to return, he had chosen not to because of "disagreements in conditions".

He also disclosed that he had met SM Lee Kuan Yew in Beijing in 1995 to discuss the return of the Singapore-born ex-communists and a resolution of the conflict.

Madam Yeong gave more details of the meeting in her letter.

"Mr Lee said he was no longer in charge, but even if he were, there was no need for a resolution as the conflict was over.

"If Mr Fang wanted to return to Singapore, the terms were a quiet disclosure of his activities to the ISD and severing of his ties with the CPM."

She noted Mr Fang's own leader, the late Eu Chooi Yip, and several others had returned on those terms without being harassed.

Madam Yeong also took issue with some other points Mr Fang made. Mr Fang had said he was in favour of merger, but his actions in the 1960s contradicted his words.

"He strongly opposed merger and ordered the late Lim Chin Siong to break up the PAP and to stop merger. There are documents and people to attest to what happened."

'Let the past be judged by historians. Arguments between old contestants are not productive.

-- Madam Yeong

THE PLEN

Mr Fang Chuang Pi, 71, was born in China and now lives in southern Thailand. The ex-Singapore boss of the defunct Malayan Communist Party was dubbed the Plen by SM Lee.

The MCP laid down arms on Dec 2, 1989, when it signed the Haadyai Peace Accord with the Thai and Malaysian governments.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sunday, September 06, 2009
What the left-wing stood for : Dr Poh Soo Kai


In a belated email reply to my questions about his views on the publication of Men In White, ex-political detainee Dr Poh Soo Kai has confirmed that he was never approached by any of its authors.

In 1954, along with other founding members of the PAP, Dr Poh had attended that historic meeting at the basement of Harry Lee Kuan Yew's house on Oxley Road to discuss the PAP constitution. When asked why he joined Lee at that time, he wrote, "you should read the original credo of the party at its founding."

On 2nd of February 1963, the former Assistant Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis was arrested and detained under Operation Coldstore. He was released unconditionally at the end of 1972 but re-arrested four years later. After spending a total of 19 years under detention without trial, he was finally released in August of 1982. Now 77, Dr Poh currently resides in Singapore.

In reply to my question on why he and other left-wing members broke from the PAP in 1961, he wrote :



I am of opinion you have framed it incorrectly. The conventional view is that the left wing of the PAP took the initiative to break with the party. (Thus your question why did left-wing split from the PAP to form the Barisan Sosialis.) There has been no convincing evidence to support this view.

The left-wing leadership had campaigned on a genuine anti-colonial, democratic platform. They had called for an end to arbitrary arrest and continued detention, an end to the restrictions on freedom and for observation of human rights, and an end to the obstructions put in the way of trade union unification.

It had invited the government to :

- Release immediately all political detainees;
- Assist in the speedy unification of the trade union movement;
- Grant the right of citizenship and franchise to all those loyal to the anti-colonial struggle;
- And to allow freedom of the press, speech and assembly and organisation.

Of note is that they regarded themselves as part of the PAP. There was no talk of a structural split. Harry Lee had threatened to resign if he lost Anson. The unionists said that was his business. A tougher tone than the statement before Hong Lim by-election.

The PAP leadership before the 1957 annual genaral meeting had decided to discard its powerful left wing. The issue was how, when and the consequences. Consequences both from the Singapore electorate and the Tungku who would much like to replace him.

By 1961 secret negotiations for merger and "the grand design" were well underway between Harry, Tungku and the Colonial masters. The PAP leadership grasped the safety line of merger initiated by the British. He decided to discard his powerful left wing, but the fight was now shifted from release of detainees, freedom, etc to that of merger. The initiative for the split thus was from the PAP leadership, not from the left-wing.

Poh Soo Kai
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yet, Goh Keng Swee brought Fang's son back to Singapore, got him a job as an Engineer with a GLC and he is now a loyal citizen.

The left wing, pro-communist and the communist opposed merger vehemently. They did not want the Tungku to go after the communist as he did during the emergency and thereafter. It was the Tungku who outrightly rejected Chin Peng's terms. In Singapore at least, you could get refuge at Raja's home and homes of numeorus luminaries and ideologues who felt swayed by Leninism.

In Malaysia, after what they did to rubber tappers, pregnant women and farmers with small holdings, no way were the communist going to have an easy life.
 

TeeKee

Alfrescian
Loyal
This was Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's press secretary's reply to remarks made by the "Plen", Mr Fang Chuang Pi, in recent interviews.

Is Mr. Fang Zhiyuan, that Temasek Review/Wayang Party guy related to this Mr. Fang Chuang Pi?
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Fang was never the boss of MCP in Singapore. This is distortion of facts. His first boss was a notorious womaniser who spent his time deflowering school girls from Chinese High and the middle School. As his nonsense got the better of his bosses , he became a target to turnover by Special Branch. No mention of him is made in view of his family resides here and close to you know who.

His Second was Eu Chooi Yip, who is a close friend of Keng Swee, Kim San and Raja and was probably best in Bukit Timah Campus for being Highly Bilingual. Both Samad and him were sent away to Jakarta to avoid Tungku's wrath. Eu eventually hid in the Riau Islands.

The term Plenipotentiary or Plen is a dead giveway - its a rep of the leader and not the leader. Eu reported into Johore Southern Command and not to Chin Peng. The the term Plean was given by old man so he knew who the actual leader was.

Mr Fang Chuang Pi, 71, was born in China and now lives in southern Thailand. The ex-Singapore boss of the defunct Malayan Communist Party was dubbed the Plen by SM Lee.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
scroobal,

forgot to add...people like the late tan sri dr cc too and corridon would probably provide a different perspective on the left wing socialist pap group during the 50s and early 60s...also people closely connected to MDU, Malayan Forum and the Singapore Town Committee...

oh and you right to remind chaps that goh and raja were friends of eu and james puthucheary...

it would appear that history was not on the side of eu, james, lim chin siong, lim, poh and company....deng xiao peng's outreach to asean and singapore in particular and the embrace of capitalism was perhaps the final nail in the coffin...
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Por

Errr my pocketbook votes with the PAP for being on the right side of history on this issue. Heck even the son's of top communist knew which was the goose that lay the golden eggs. I admire them for their courage and dedication but am more than happy to state that I am glad the PAP won



Locke
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Some how I got the feeling that there are records and manuscripts waiting in the wings - to appear soon after old man's death. Besides the old man, there is also the Kuok family, namely in memory of Billy and many others.

I could sense that old man was trying his best to hold back during the funeral of Lim Chin Siong.

Its was a difficult time.

CC Too was kept away from the Singapore side. The 3 main characters would be Corridon ( who passed in England ), Ahmad Shah ( went back to Pakistan but visited at his home there by old man and William Cheng ( retired perm sec )

scroobal,

forgot to add...people like the late tan sri dr cc too and corridon would probably provide a different perspective on the left wing socialist pap group during the 50s and early 60s...also people closely connected to MDU, Malayan Forum and the Singapore Town Committee...

oh and you right to remind chaps that goh and raja were friends of eu and james puthucheary...

it would appear that history was not on the side of eu, james, lim chin siong, lim, poh and company....deng xiao peng's outreach to asean and singapore in particular and the embrace of capitalism was perhaps the final nail in the coffin...
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
This would have been the scenario after 50 years if they had won. Thousands of "running dogs" whether true or not will be slaughtered. Would have wasted 30 years before realising that Lenin was wrong. Another 10 years to find out that Singapore Politburo had sent their sons and daughters to the US to proper as Deng's daughter.

Corruption will be rife as capitalism will lead to a sprint to riches.

The counter arguments will be - No Ho Ching. Maybe it might have been better.

Dear Por
Errr my pocketbook votes with the PAP for being on the right side of history on this issue. Heck even the son's of top communist knew which was the goose that lay the golden eggs. I admire them for their courage and dedication but am more than happy to state that I am glad the PAP won
Locke
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
you, me and probably the large majority of the Merdeka generation bro...

from my interaction with people who personally knew chaps like drs. lim hock siew and poh su kai...i get the impression that they truly cared for the downtrodden and poor and cared little for material wealth...however at the sametime they also appeared way too far to the left...

Dear Por

Errr my pocketbook votes with the PAP for being on the right side of history on this issue. Heck even the son's of top communist knew which was the goose that lay the golden eggs. I admire them for their courage and dedication but am more than happy to state that I am glad the PAP won



Locke
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
ah yes the kuok family...james puthucheary's close friendship with william kuok was an interesting link...lots of relationships and links to be mined for information...

Some how I got the feeling that there are records and manuscripts waiting in the wings - to appear soon after old man's death. Besides the old man, there is also the Kuok family, namely in memory of Billy and many others. )

i was under the impression that cc too was involved on advice viz the merger and operation coldstore...

CC Too was kept away from the Singapore side. The 3 main characters would be Corridon ( who passed in England ), Ahmad Shah ( went back to Pakistan but visited at his home there by old man and William Cheng ( retired perm sec )
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
and you , locke and me would probably be living in our dachas:biggrin::p

This would have been the scenario after 50 years if they had won. Thousands of "running dogs" whether true or not will be slaughtered. Would have wasted 30 years before realising that Lenin was wrong. Another 10 years to find out that Singapore Politburo had sent their sons and daughters to the US to proper as Deng's daughter.

Corruption will be rife as capitalism will lead to a sprint to riches.

The counter arguments will be - No Ho Ching. Maybe it might have been better.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
6 September 2009
Send in the clowns


The last few days, the print edition of the Straits Times filled me with despair. Every day, pages and pages were devoted to a book (titled Men in White) that they recently published about the People's Action Party (PAP). More incessant hardsell one could barely imagine. The overkill only served to remind me of the newspaper's decades-long devotion to acting as an apologist for the PAP government, but now in the twilight of Lee Kuan Yew's years, it also comes across as a somewhat desperate attempt to carve in stone the central role of the PAP in the national narrative.
The boast is that this book treats Lee's opponents within the PAP fairly. This is a boast borne of necessity. A new generation of Singaporeans will not bother with any history that does not. But whether that boast is supported by the actual writing, I shall leave it to others, more knowledgeable about history, to assess.

Already though, the excerpts published so far in the Straits Times, suggest that anyone yearning for a more radical reading of history may be disappointed. The book's so-called "fair treatment" may be no more than cosmetic. Yet, the thing about giving an inch is that one can sometimes spy the missing mile.

For example, in the telling of the 1961 split when a faction left to form the Barisan Socialis, the excerpts indicate that those who left did so because they felt extremely uncomfortable with Lee's headlong rush into Malaysia.



What has been revealed is that Lee was convinced that the leftwing of the PAP had pro-communist sympathies, and that they could potentially carry the electorate. Lee didn't feel he was strong enough to stop the leftist tide. Instead he appealed to foreign powers to intervene to save him and his ideals. This was the true motive behind the idea of Malaysia. A radical reading of history could therefore say: This man sold Singapore out in order to stop his opponents from taking Singapore in the direction he disagreed with. In most other countries, such a leader would be called a traitor.

Then, bolstered by the foreign power, Lee launched Operation Coldstore, detaining without trial large numbers of the opposition, in order that they could not impede the consolidation of his (foreign-supported) power, and ending Singapore's brief fling with a two-party system. In most other countries, such a politician would be called unspeakable names.

Karma struck back unusually soon. The foreign power decided it really didn't need Lee and tried instead to take Singapore for itself. It started to undermine Lee by raising the spectre of racial conflict. So Lee was played out. Such a politician is normally lampooned as a fool.

Eventually, to save his own skin, Lee pulled Singapore out of the federation. In effect, the 1961 naysayers in the PAP were proven right when they said the terms of merger were lousy and not acceptable.

So, who was the reckless one who played Russian Roulette with Singapore's future? Bear in mind too, the then Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, had no interest in the idea of Malaysia; it was Lee who kept selling the idea to him and the British by constantly referring to the communist threat, a threat which, by 1960, had ended. The Malayan Emergency ceased that year, with the remnants of the communist guerillas driven into Southern Thailand.

If Malaya had not expanded into Malaysia, what would the British have done with Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo? Might the British have decided instead to create a bigger Singapore incorporating these territories? If so, might today's Singapore therefore have more strategic space than it now has? In other words, are we worse off now after that reckless and misguided adventure into Malaysia?

In the foregoing, I have deliberate overstated an interpretation of history, playing a kind of devil's advocate to make a point: A truly incisive look at history will require us to conduct an analysis as critical as that. That, to me, is what I would understand by "fair treatment".

However, as most Singaporeans will know, such a critical analysis is not yet possible. For now, however critical a book pretends to be, Lee must emerge a hero, not traitor, fool or &%^*#$@)%(^. At best, we can only be permitted the kind of "fair treatment" the new book, so loudly trumpetted by the Straits Times, displays.

* * * * *

Before any reader gets too carried away by the "traitor" label, consider the opposing argument: Was Singapore even conceived as a viable country then? If it wasn't, how can anyone be called a traitor to a country that did not exist in the minds of his contemporaries?
We cannot use today's terms of reference when reading history.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Despair was leavened with a bit of hope Saturday (5 September 2009). The same newspaper finally addressed the question that people have asked for years: What if a rogue government sprang from the bosom of the PAP?

PAP leaders always assumed that if the opposition were to form the government, it would be a weak one which would ruin the country. The institutional safeguards they designed were supposed to prevent the emergence of a rogue government.

But what if the rogue government sprang from the bosom of the PAP itself? Was it inconceivable that a good PAP government might turn rotten mid-term or that a good prime minister could succumb to temptations along the way?

-- Straits Times, 5 Sept 2009, What if a rogue govt sprang from the bosom of the PAP?

The newspaper noted that of all the scenarios for Singapore's future, this is about the scariest, and yet, I would add, it is also one of the most likely. It is scarier than the scenario of an opposition party winning a general election, forming a new government and then making a hash of things, because this latter scenario would imply that there are competitive elections, which in turn means there is an avenue for the people to throw out the incompetents before long. In saying this, I must caution readers not to fall into the unthinking association that an opposition-led government will surely be a bad one, as often suggested by the PAP. Who knows, it could well be that an opposition party may prove itself a worthy government.

A rogue government springing from the PAP itself is the scariest of all, because it means they will have all the wide powers available to suppress dissent and entrench themselves in power. As the Straits Times wrote, it would be

... in full control of all the levers of power and all the key institutions from the presidency, judiciary and civil service to the labour movement, grassroots associations, professional organisations and the mass media.

-- ibid.

At the same time, the newspaper reminded us of

Singapore's highly ranked and much-envied system of governance ... with all its institutional locks and keys to check and oust a nefarious prime minister and his government

-- ibid

(By the way, I wondered why it was necessary to add the modifiers "highly ranked and much-envied" in that sentence. See the editorial bias at work?)

But I have my doubts about relying on any of these. After all, look at our judiciary. It's the one institution supposedly anchored to rigorous standards of justice developed over centuries in England. Yet, have they not been cowed, judging by its performance in every single politically sensitive case involving opposition politicians and independent media? You expect the civil service, the central bank, the presidency, the Elections Department, the police force, etc, to stand up to a PAP government gone bad?

In any case, is it not over-simplistic to speak of a "rogue" government, as if we will know when we have one? The nature of things is that decline is gradual. Shortcuts to the rule of law are taken, exceptions made, which at each instance would seem entirely justifiable given the prevailing circumstances. It is usually only with hindsight that we can see when things took a turn for the worse. Like the proverbial frog in slowly-boiling water, our "institutions" will keep adjusting to the realities of political demands until they are well and truly cooked.

The only way we can stop the rot is if we do not subscribe to the notion of the "Singapore way". Our standards of police independence, justice in defamation suits, human rights, freedom of speech and the non-politicisation of the civil service must be exactly the same as the best standards in the world. We must be intolerant of any slippage from those standards. There is no such thing as the "Singapore way". We must defend best standards and resist any departure from them even when times are good, because we will never know when times are not good till it is too late.

What was interesting about this Straits Times story was how all the non-government commentators it quoted were virtually unanimous that a two-party system would be best. For example, it quoted Ngiam Tong Dow:

Among those who saw the merits of such a system was former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow. In an interview with The Straits Times, he said that Singapore would survive Lee provided he left the right legacy, which was to 'open up politically and allow talent to be spread throughout our society so that an alternative leadership can emerge'.

'Unless Lee allows serious political challenges to emerge from the alternative elite out there, the incumbent elite will just coast along....

-- ibid.

A political researcher with the Institute of Policy Studies put it in another way:

Gillian Koh envisaged the political ideal as one which would ensure the survival of a country irrespective of which party was in power. Citing the example of Taiwan under the presidency of Democratic Progressive Party's Chen Shui-bian before he was replaced by Kuomintang's Ma Ying-jeou in 2008, the senior research fellow said: 'The country can now survive in spite of who is in power. It's not going to collapse. So even if you have a president who has completely lost all confidence of the people, the country will survive. There is the business sector, there is the people sector, there is a bureaucracy that will keep it going.'

-- ibid.

What the newspaper unearthed was a near-unanimity of thinking opinion in Singapore, that we really need to open up and move to a more competitive political system. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone outside of the PAP today who would argue for more of the paternalistic one-party rule the party has represented for so long.

The centre of gravity has finally shifted. But what of the government's response? Are they still in denial mode? Is there anyone there who has the wisdom to see that the best legacy they can leave behind is to redesign the political system to make it more open, competitive, fairer and more soundly based on principles of human rights?

I'm not holding my breath. And frankly, that I am not should tell you the rot has begun. Perhaps the rogues are already here. Have they been here since 1961?

© Yawning Bread
 
Top